Skip to content
← Have an idea? Share it!

Settings and activity

1 result found

  1. Ensure reliable & trustworthy election technologies

    2,906 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    61 comments  ·  Obama CTO  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 30

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

    Open Source can and has produced code that is more robust and secure than proprietary code.

    And it is not sane to have any code running our public elections *hidden* away from us by corporations who have a huge stake in the outcome of elections.

    But invoking the phrase "Open Source" does not magically make EVMs secure...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 29

    From what studies had been performed it was obvious that EVM software was buggy and insecure... the obvious first idea was to make the software Open Source and open up the machines to public inspection. Of course this flew like a lead balloon with the EVM shills (both corporate and state) but it would no doubt be a vast improvement.

    But would it make EVMs actually secure?

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 28

    Ideas were proposed among election integrity advocates and debated. Given the fact that HAVA was the law (one based on unrealistic concepts), and given that EVMs were in place and that states had no budget for replacing them (said budgets instead being drained by the corporations for "maintenance and setup fees"), the ideas had to start with the EVMs in then in place.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 27

    People tried to find solutions. Studies of EVMs were done where feasible, and always the same results: Unsecure. Hackable. And the people who by games theory and by long history in politics were the most likely to game the system were the ones entrusted with providing the security that the EVMs themselves lacked: the insiders at state and corporate levels.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 26

    But election integrity schisms did not start or end with Daily Kos.

    With HAVA wrecking the rule of law in state electoral processes and EVM shills spewing vast amounts of lies, excuses and deceptions concerning EVMs, with scientists and researchers banned by law from investigating EVMs or reporting their findings if they did investigate... reactions were fragmented.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 25

    A very unfortunate pattern was set early when the popular netroots site Daily Kos banned talk of malfeasance during the 2000 elections as "conspiracy theories"... and not incidentally banned by default any talk of election integrity (EI) that questioned the status quo.

    This was a self-destructive policy that effectively *enforced* the right-wing talking points on EI issues.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 24

    The budding netroots encountered the election integrity question and wrestled with it... but since the ""bipartisan"" HAVA act actually followed a very right-wing agenda at its core the same screaming tsunami of lies, denial, distortion, deception, even more lies and faux outrage greeted *every* inquiry into elections, HAVA and EVMs.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 23

    And the EVM wave washed across America! Well... mostly.

    Some places like New York simply said "No. Not until you answer some of the questions about these machines."

    And questions there were. Lots of them. The HAVA steamroller had raised awareness of EVMs and then as EVMs began affecting places that had not had to deal with them before many people began asking "WTF?"

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 22

    And EAC officials often falsely told state officials that HAVA mandated EVMs for Federal elections... when even *that* power-grab of a bill didn't dare go that far.

    But the EVMs were still EVMs. The machines were always labeled as "Unhackable!" even though the EVMs' inherent vulnerabilities remained *unchanged* from the earliest reports (back in Analysis part 6).

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 21

    HAVA mandated billions for election "upgrades" while outlawing punch-card and mechanical lever machines.

    A "temporary" agency called the Election Assistance Commission was created and guess what? It turned out to be all about EVMs and assisting corporate control of elections and has failed abjectly at every one of its *mandated* duties.
    http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=159

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 20

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    I think the parallel to Klein's theory is appropriate and it turned out that, yes indeed!, HAVA was not about "helping Americans vote" but instead was all about converting the various states' electoral systems to, essentially, corporate control and transferring billions of dollars to the corporations.

    Sound familiar?

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 19

    Regardless of the various causes of the 2000 debacle...

    The event and its aftermath waved a huge red flag emblazoned "Shock Doctrine!" in the faces of certain parties... who proceeded to slam through Congress a profoundly misnamed bill called the "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA) that was *supposedly* aimed at preventing a repeat of 2000.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 18

    (I am the zapkitty. Snark or die!)

    Hey, I even gots a genuine conspiracy theory about that incident reported here by a left-wing liberal kook to back it up. It's towards the end of this video:

    http://www.hd.net/drr227.html

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 17

    And then it happened.
    The event that changed everything and put America on a wartime footing against a deadly new enemy and thus, we were told, forced the abandonment of the rule of law and the gutting of the U.S. Constitution and all state constitutions.

    The event: the terrorist attack known as the 2000 elections...

    The enemy: "hanging chads"...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 16

    "Proprietary!", "Tinfoil!" and "Luddite!" became common battle cries from the EVM shills.

    But the corruption of the electoral process was perforce piecemeal, with some states refusing to allow their strict concepts of electoral law to be compromised despite the presence of EVMs, and others even refusing to allow EVMs at all.

    To certain parties this was intolerable...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    gots to beware the ^c 'n' ^v from the main essay... apostrophes are running amuck amidst the verb tenses...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 15

    And the electronic elephant of EVM's grew larger and larger and sporting ever-fancier frills while pirouetting on the coffee table in the living room. Still spewing toxic crap all over American elections because the supposed fixes to EVM's built-in security vulnerabilities were as far away as ever.

    More studies were done, more warnings were issued and ignored...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 14

    Through the late 90's the non-electronic components of the various state electoral systems were systematically corrupted by intent and also by the mere presence of EVMs themselves, corrupted further than ever before in the checkered past of America's electoral history because "we need the machines even if our laws and state constitution don't allow it. It's progress!"

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 13

    (Ironic because the EVMs have been (ab)used in some of the most racist voter disenfranchisement campaigns seen since the days of Jim Crow with the simplest being "No Working EVMs = No Vote." But those particular stories are for later...)

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 12

    The States are to be responsible for elections, an inevitable move at the time of the Revolutionary War but also a deliberate one by the Founders in order to place a necessary check on that aspect of Federal power.

    Yeah, it's that civics lesson checks and balances thing again... but don't mention it nowadays or the EVM shills will begin screaming "RACISM!" Ironic, yes?

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 11

    Since the mid-20th century it's been useful to the politicos, election officials, and corporations for the American "consumer" to be lulled into a since of complacency about elections, to have them think of voting as a quick, mechanized chore one did before or after work before getting back to the serious business of consuming... and then watching results on the evening news.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    While I'm helping Stan 314 understand his budding Ivotronic addiction, my analysis will continue with the 2000's...

    When the EVM insanity spiraled to infinity and beyond and the first organized resistance to EVMs began fighting... and infighting... When paper trails and open source as EVM solutions blossomed and then faded. And just how Holt's reform bill went from good idea to utter fiasco.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Reply to Stan 314 addendum

    Bad link for the Florida report on
    ES&S Ivotronic flaws. Sorry!

    Report from the Ohio Secretary of State is just as damning:
    http://www.bbvdocs.org/ESS/EVEREST-ESS.pdf

    And latest paper trail hack can be undetectable even with full recount. Is for Sequoia and not tried on ES&S yet but outlook does not look good:
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6369

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Reply to Stan314 part 2 of 2

    And it is a matter of faith... not science:
    http://election.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/FinalAudRepSAIT.pdf
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6671
    http://www.usenix.org/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/aviv/aviv_html/
    http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers/papertrailhack2.pdf

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Reply to Stan314 part 1 of 2

    Stan314 said:

    "Hmm. I used the eletronic system in Henderson, NV and was very impressed:..."

    Congratulations! Welcome to faith-based voting! Please enjoy your newfound religion to your heart's content... just don't mind the rest of us if we want to stop Congress from making the beliefs of your new faith into laws governing how the rest of us vote.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 10

    And all the while certain parties practiced very hard on all the OTHER ways of stealing elections. Voter suppression schemes, electoral officials abusing their powers to game the ballots and even the polling places themselves etc... It was all an old game in electoral politics, but now people were working to a semi-coherent scheme and laying long-range groundwork.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 9

    So it continued through the 1990's, with the very large elephant of intrinsically insecure EVM's standing in the middle of the living room and crapping all over American elections with relatively few people wanting... or daring... to point out the mess.

    And the elephant grew...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Interlude

    My analysis, while long for this format even now, is not as detailed as even a cursory examination of the subject should be. I'm just focusing here on the facts that bear on exactly why the vague proposal by jesse_kocher is such a very ill-advised approach to actually solving the ongoing mess.

    And yes all this background will help to understand what the problem is.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 8

    So... the corporate types were often whispering their bland reassurances into the ears of government types who had been working for them a year ago. And they handwaved "security" by invoking "trained personnel" and "polling place controls"... even though the "trained personnel" in the "controlled polling places" were actually the *most* capable and the *most* likely to tamper...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 7

    And thus the fact that the concept of voting by EVMs, e-voting, had certain fatal flaws was... understated... by corporations and corporate and government scientists who instead went about spinning their own reality of "just good enough" or "fixable in the future."

    For you see, the corporate/government revolving door program was operating at full spin overdrive...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 6

    Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) had arrived... and even then it was being pointed out that it was impossible to secure EVM's against fraud.

    http://www.thelandesreport.com/1985.htm
    http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158.htm/lab/specpubs/500-158.htm

    But people were always being
    reassured that the level of fraud could be *minimized*... in the future...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 5

    Electronic vote tabulation began sneaking into elections in the 1960's, gradually increasing its sway over elections as each year saw an ever-increasing percentage of the votes cast nationwide being counted by software.

    And problems, studies and warnings issued by those studies all increased as well. By the 1980's things were really heating up.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 4

    And the reason for this is the prize at stake: Control of the wealthiest (before the economy was wrecked and the treasury drained) and most powerful (before military was driven into the ground) nation on Earth.

    So how did we get here... a situation where technology that is insanely easy to game is actually running elections? And why do I say that technology can't get us out?

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 3

    One of the differences in emphasis that needs to be applied to elections is that in game theory you assume that all users are attempting to "game" the system at all times.

    You *plan* for an environment where everyone lies, everyone cheats, and everyone steals everything that isn't nailed down :)

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis part 2

    This distinction between technology and game theory is important.

    Remember the adage "If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything starts looking like nails"... ?

    Election integrity has many components, and technology is only one of them.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    And part 2 won't post... waiting for feedback from uservoice.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Analysis, part 1 of... whatever is required.

    What we have in jesse_kocher's proposal is a vague statement that reeks of "Tech Über Alles" in the area of election integrity and election reform.

    But election integrity and election reform are NOT technologies... they are actually exercises in *game theory*.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Hmmm... some comments go through, others don't. Criteria? Will ask...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Australian e-voting supporters, especially in the government, do love to talk up their system, and by the time the Wired Magazine article got through with it... it had become "Australia's Universally Used and Much Beloved Open Source E-Voting System and Cure for Cancer"... which, it seems, is how much of the world still thinks of it today.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    What happened to Australia's wonderful open source-voting system everyone talks about?

    It never was.

    Aside from experiments aimed at the disabled and military , Australians fill out paper ballots as usual.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    pmocek
    "This is absolutely essential."
    ?
    But if it is flatly impossible for a variety of reasons, which it is and which fact I shall proceed to prove in subsequent comments, then you're just following the old path blazed of ideology over science... just exactly as the last major voting "reform" effort did.

    And we've had quite enough of the age of unreason, don't you think?

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Explanations, references and links should and will follow such statements as I have made here... but I have no idea how this forum's software will react to lot of links so first a lot of hard data, knowledge gathered from the field, references, and links to a multitude of scientific studies can be found at
    http://bradblog.com
    and
    http://blackboxvoting.org

    to be continued...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    John Argent said
    "... does anyone realize it was not the machines that were the problem in FL it was the people not taking responsibility for properly voting?"

    Are you aware that that is misinformation?

    The GAO audit said no such thing... and in fact NO ONE has yet found a way to explain FL-13 that jibes with the known facts... no one at all:
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5125

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    ... continuing...

    jesse_kocher said:
    "The CTO can create a clear roadmap to get reliable, trustworthy, verifiable voting technology"

    If by "voting technology" you mean EVMs that are reliable, trustworthy and verifiable then that statement is incorrect. In fact it's so flat out wrong it hurts to listen to it.

    No, the CTO can't work miracles.

    ... to be continued...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    ... continuing...

    jesse_kocher said:
    "Optical scanners and other technologies have some problems as well."

    Badly slanted. Op-scans *are* electronic voting machines (EVMs) and are as subject to malware and malfunction as DREs. The only difference is that there is an actual paper ballot left behind to manually recount... after the damage is done.

    ... to be continued ...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    jesse_kocher said:
    "Electronic voting machines are insecure, unreliable, and prone to a variety of problems that undermine trust in our elections process."

    This is correct. From what you wrote about op-scans immediately afterward I assume you actually meant Direct Record Electronic (DRE) machines, most often known as "touchscreens".
    to be continued

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    the zapkitty commented  · 

    Consider this... if you all were to belatedly discover that this idea has roared up to #7 on the "most-wanted technology list" on the basis of a flatly impossible assertion... "The CTO can create a clear roadmap to get reliable, trustworthy, verifiable voting technology" ... what then?

    Is further conversation and adjustment even possible in this venue?